Printable View
Did Hemingway failed to create worlds that lived beyond his work? I find this vague, specially mentioning a great stabilished writer. It can go as wrong as to go the extremes, Faulkner is either a genius or a howling wolf with a cold. It seems like the same mistake. What would be the argument if Faulkner was tested with other masters of simplicity or economy?
Faulkner did in fact adapt his style to his work. Sanctuary and Light in August, for example, are vastly different stylistically than The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom! Hemingway, conversely, seems beholden to his even in instances where his work suffered for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Oh, but that is not what I meant. I mean if the arguments used here were like... Faulkner and Kafka. The stories of Kafka seems empty, almost like concepts, many were not fully devleoped (or were meant to be), he manipulates language with craft, but I doubt he can be said to alter the perpection of time and space like Faulkner. Yet, he can create a idea about time and space as The Castle, which seems as much complex as Sound and Fury.
Was really necessary for Hemingway to be as Faulkner to be remarkable? Because it seems to me that there is a consensus about him being remarkable, so he certainly must have a level of complexity and capacity to go beyond his work which is being too easily dismissed here. I dont think we are talking about light weights here...
I didn't mean to dismiss Hemingway as a lightweight if that is how it came across, merely to illustrate my opinion that Faulkner was the more complex of the two, which was the topic of the OP, as well as attempt to explain I prefer him. The fact that I prefer Faulkner does not preclude my admiration for Hemingway, in fact I do admire him and enjoy his work as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Complexity in literature means strictly nothing.
That said, I find Faulkner's language more complex, you need more readings to develop its taste.
Complexity is a bad metric. It's sort of like trying to decide which of two cars goes faster based on which one has the most pieces. A car dealer would probably just look at you funny. But if you really want to know whether Hemingway or Faulkner has more pieces, it's really easy to answer. Whereas Hemingway was in the habit of carving canoes out of solid pieces of wood, Faulkner made houses out of toothpicks, so clearly Faulkner is more complex.
Hemingway's "Hills like White Elephants" is a fairly good example of his iceberg theory of fiction, in which what is presented on the page is the merest tip of what lurks below the surface. Is it complex? Probably not. But it is certainly sophisticated.
This is definitely true, I've used the analogy of Scotch whiskey in the past with reference to this. With regards to complexity, it goes beyond mere questions of diction and style, into depth of character, character interaction, and the apocryphal Yoknapatawpha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
People don't actually like texts because they're more complex, the cult of complexity actually puzzles me.
Admittedly that is true, we are essentially using the term as a catch all to delineate differences between the two. In essay or oral argument I tend to be more specific, as do all of us I'm sure, whereas in a forum format specificity is sometimes not sufficiently delineated for the sake of brevity.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
Again, at least for me, that isn't what draws me to Faulkner per se. It is more about the characters their interactions and the level of overall detail. Also, having grown up in the deep south, much of his work resonates with me on a personal level. While many of his themes are universal, and it is certainly true that Faulkner used his setting to explore the nature of man, as opposed to the converse, the idiosyncrasies and atmosphere of that setting really hit close to home for one who came from that part of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
Ultimately it does come down to preference between these two, and while I generally admire and enjoy Hemingway, Faulkner happens to be my favorite writer. Literature will resonate to different degrees with different individuals, but honestly this is a good thing. The world would be a stifling and dreadful place if one opinion, or insight, was universal.
Faulkner uses his complexity for something, when complexity helps you realize something, it can be a well placed tool, but making things more complex won't help them make things more clear. Faulkner has a nice balance, because his text comes impersonal and blunt, which gives a very alien perspective -which can be a new perspective if you haven't read that kind of things-. Changing perspectives is important to become a competent reader, and arguably Faulkner helps you to that end in a different way than Hemingway does.
No question. Faulkner was a master of stylistic complexity. Hemingway was a master of stylistic simplicity.
I dont think this is true, at least not for me. I can like a book solely because it is complex. To love the book it has to be more than that, but for me raw complexity goes a long way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
I like the complexity in a book, but not the book itself. When faced with complexity that I like I always wonder where it may live much more than how it is used, but that by itself is no book. So I don't know, maybe an example could clarify this, personally most of the complex books I've read are somewhat mediocre.
Reading Faulkner is like wading through mud but reading Hemingway is often like floating on air.
I see it more along the lines of reading Faulkner is like reminiscing scenes from a memory whereas Hemingway is reading the headlines of a newspaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller